Skip to main content

What do we really know about conflicts of interest in biomedical research?

Psychopharmacology volume 171, pages 36–46 (2003)Cite this article

Abstract

Rationale

Conflicts of interest in research have long been seen to pose serious threats to the integrity of research. Indeed, the past two decades have revealed increased attention to the possible influence of conflicts of interest as the number of research studies funded by private industry have increased.

Objectives

We review empirical findings directly pertinent to issues concerning financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research, and we provide an overview of the current issues and state of understanding concerning such conflicts in research.

Methods

We searched Medline from January 1992 to January 2002 to locate current studies that have reported primary or secondary empirical data pertaining to conflicts of interest in research.

Results

The rate of potential conflicts of interest for researchers appears to be at least 30% in some situations although the accuracy of such a rate is untested, and the rate of disclosure of conflicts of interest is as low as 2%. Furthermore, some evidence exists to indicate that researchers with conflicting interests may indeed offer different professional opinions and judgments than those for whom such conflicts do not exist. The effectiveness of various disclosure and management methods for conflicts of interest is unknown.

Conclusions

We summarize the current empirical literature, concluding that relatively little is known based on such data. We suggest a number of questions that need to be answered by future research, and we offer recommendations for policy makers to consider and evaluate in the future in identifying, revealing, and managing conflicts of interest.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price includes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

References

  • Association of American Medical Colleges (1990) Guidelines for dealing with faculty conflicts of commitment and conflicts of interest in research, 1990. http://www.aamc.org/research/dbr/coi.htm. Cited 15 Jan 2002

  • Association of American Medical Colleges (2001) Guidelines for dealing with faculty conflicts of commitment and conflicts of interest in research, 2001

  • American Medical Association (2001) Code of medical ethics, 2001. http://www.aamc.org/research/dbr/coi.htm. Cited 15 Jan 2002

  • Barnes DE, Bero LA (1998) Why review articles on the health effects of passive smoking reach different conclusions. JAMA 279:1566–1570

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Barry D, Cyran E, Anderson RJ (2000) Common issues in medical professionalism: room to grow. Am J Med 108:136–142

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Blumenthal D, Campbell EG, Causino N, Louis KS (1996a) Participation of life science faculty in research relationships with industry: extent and effects. N Engl J Med 335:1734–1739

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Blumenthal D, Causino N, Campbell EG, Louis KS (1996b) Relationships between academic institutions and industry: an industry survey. N Engl J Med 334:368–373

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Blumenthal D, Campbell EG, Anderson MS, Causino N, Louis KS (1997a) Withholding research results in academic life science. JAMA 277:1224–1228

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Blumenthal D, Causino N, Campbell EG (1997b) Academic–industry research relationships in genetics: a field apart. Nat Genet 16:104–107

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bodenheimer T (2000) Uneasy alliance: clinical investigators and the pharmaceutical industry. N Engl J Med 342:1539–1544

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Boyd EA, Bero LA (2000) Assessing faculty financial relationships with industry. JAMA 284:2209–2214

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell EG, Louis KS, Blumenthal D (1998) Looking a gift horse in the mouth: corporate gifts supporting life sciences research. JAMA 279:995–999

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cho MK, Bero LA (1996) The quality of drug studies published in symposium proceedings. Arch Intern Med 124:485–489

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cho MK, Shohara R, Schissel A, Rennie D (2000) Policies on faculty conflicts of interest of U.S. universities. JAMA 284:2203–2208

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Choudhry NK, Stelfox HT, Detsky AS (2002) Relationships between authors of clinical practice guidelines and the pharmaceutical industry. JAMA 287:612–617

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cialdini RB, Trost MR (1998) Influence, social norms, conformity, and compliance. In: Gilbert DT, Fiske ST, Lindzey G (eds) The handbook of social psychology, 4th edn. Oxford University Press, New York

  • Department of Health and Human Services (2000) FDA oversight of clinical investigators, April 2000. Publication OEI-05-00350. Department of Health and Human Service, Washington

  • Djulbegovic B, Lacevic M, Cantor A, Fields KK, Bennett CL, Adams JR (2000) The uncertainty principle and industry-sponsored research. Lancet 356:635–638

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Friedberg M, Bernard S, Stinson TJ, Nelson W, Bennett CL (1999) Evaluation of conflict of interest in economic analyses of new drugs used in oncology. JAMA 282:1453–1457

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Goldman CR, Cutler DL (2002) Pharmaceutical industry support of psychiatric research and education: ethical issues and proposed remedies. In: Backlar P, Cutler DL (eds) Ethics in community mental health care: commonplace concerns. Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York

  • Hussain A, Smith R (2001) Declaring financial competing interests: survey of five general medical journals. BMJ 323:263–264

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (1997) Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. Ann Intern Med 126:36–47

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kihlstrom J (2000) The cognitive unconscious. Science 267:1445–1452

    Google Scholar 

  • Kjaergard LL, Nikolova D, Gluud C (1999) Randomized clinical trials in hepatology: predictors of quality. Hepatology 30:1134–1138

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Krimsky S, Rothenberg LS (2001) Conflict of interest policies in science and medical journals: editorial practices and author disclosures. Sci Eng Ethics 7:205–218

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Krimsky S, Rothenberg LS, Stott P, Kyle G (1996) Financial interests of authors in scientific journals: a pilot study of 14 publications. Sci Eng Ethics 2:395–410

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Krimsky S, Rothenberg LS, Stott P, Kyle G (1998) Scientific journals and their authors’ financial interests: a pilot study. Psychother Psychosom 67:194–201

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Korenman SG, Berk R, Wenger NS, Lew V (1998) Evaluation of the research norms of scientists and administrators responsible for academic research integrity. JAMA 279:41–47

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • La Puma J, Stocking CB, Rhoades WD, Darling CM (1995) An ethical debate: financial ties as part of informed consent to postmarketing research attitudes of American doctors and patients. BMJ 310:1660–1661

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lenzer J (2002) Alteplase for stroke: money and optimistic claims buttress the “brain attack” campaign. BMJ 324:723–729

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lo B, Wolf LE, Berkeley A (2001) Conflict-of-interest policies for investigators in clinical trials. N Engl J Med 343:1616–1620

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCrary VS, Anderson CB, Jakovljevic J, Khan T, McCullough LB, Wray NP, Brody BA (2000) A national survey of policies on disclosure of conflicts of interest in biomedical research. N Engl J Med 343:1621–1626

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • National Institutes of Health (2002) Research on research integrity, request for applications, RFA NS-03–001. http://grants2.nih.gov/grants/award. Cited 15 May 2002

  • National Science Foundation (1999) Principals and guidelines for recipients of NIH research grants and contracts on obtaining and disseminating biomedical research resources: final notice. Publication 64-FR-72090. http://ntalpha.bfa.nsf.gov/nsffundhist_files. Cited 31 May 2002

  • Press E, Washburn J (2000) The kept university. The Atlantic Monthly, March 2000, pp 39–54

  • Reuters (2002a) Poll reflects Americans’ concerns about clinical trials. Reuters Medical News. http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/430854_print. Cited 11 April 2002

  • Reuters (2002b) Lawmakers propose new protections for human research subjects. Reuters Medical News. http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/433403_print. Cited 24 May 2002

  • Rochon PA, Gurwitz JH, Cheung M, Hayes JA, Chalmers TC (1994a) Evaluating the quality of articles published in journal supplements compared with the quality of those published in the parent journal. JAMA 272:108–113

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rochon PA, Gurwitz JH, Simms RW, Fortin PR, Felson DT, Minaker KL, Chalmers TC (1994b) A study of manufacturer-supported trials of the nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the treatment of arthritis. Arch Intern Med 154:157–163

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stelfox HT, Chua G, O’Rourke K, Detsky AS (1998) Conflict of interest in the debate over calcium channel antagonists. N Engl J Med 338:101–106

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Uleman JS, Bargh JA (1989) Unintended thought. Guilford Press, New York

  • U.S. General Accounting Office (2001) Biomedical research: HHS direction needed to address financial conflicts of interest. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Wegner DM, Bargh JA Control and automaticity in social life. In: Gilbert DT, Fiske ST, Lindzey G (eds) The handbook of social psychology, vol. 1, 4th edn. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp 446–496

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Eberhard Uhlenhuth, M.D., and Cynthia Geppert, M.D., for their discussions with us regarding conflicts of interest and for their very helpful comments regarding an earlier version of this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychiatry, 1 University of New Mexico School of Medicine, 2400 Tucker NE, Albuquerque, NM 87131, USA

    Teddy D. Warner & John P. Gluck

Authors
  1. Teddy D. Warner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. John P. Gluck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Teddy D. Warner.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Warner, T.D., Gluck, J.P. What do we really know about conflicts of interest in biomedical research?. Psychopharmacology 171, 36–46 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-003-1657-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-003-1657-x

Keywords

  • Conflict of interest
  • Academic–industry research relationships
  • Industry-funded research